2025:CGHC:22500-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2724 of 2025 Tata Projects Limited Having Its Registered Office At Mithona Towers-1, 1-7- 80 To 87 Penderghast Road, Secunderabad, Telangana- 500003, And Its Corporate Office At 14th - 15th Floor, Cignus, Plot No. 71a, Kailash Nagar, Mayur Nagar Passpoli, Powai, Mumbai- 400087, Represented Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder- Shri Rahul Jadwani ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Infotech Promiton Society Registered Office At S D C Building, 2nd Floor, Near Police Control Room, Civil Lines Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001, Represented Through Its Chief Executive Officer. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Electronics And Information Technology, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Telecommunications, Ministry Of Communications, Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi- 110001. 4 - State Bank Of India Corporate Accounts Group, Mumbai, 23 J N Herdia Marg, Nevile House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai, India ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh & Ms. Pragya Chouhan, Advocate. For Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Rishabh Garg, Advocate. For Res. No. 2/ State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Addl. A.G. For Resp. No. 3/UOI : Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy.S.G. For Resp. No. 4/SBI : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas & Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.05 16:24:18 +0530 Order on Board Per Narendra Kumar Vyas, Judge 05/06 /2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for following relief:- (i) Issue a writ or order or direction in the form of mandamus directing restoration of status quo ante to place the petitioner in the same position in which it was prior to the encashment of the Performance Bank Guarantee No. 0999518BG1000493 for Rs. 167.46 crore by:- (a) Directing respondent No. 1 to return Rs. 167.46 crores being the proceeds of the bank guarantee No. 0999518BG1000493 to respondent No. 4; and (b) Directing respondent No. 4 to issue another identical bank guarantee for Rs. 167.46 crores to be kept valid till the resolution of disputes between the parties. (ii) In the alternative, issue a writ or order or direction in the form of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to deposit Rs. 167.46 crores, being the proceeds of the bank guarantee No. 0999518BG1000493 invoked by it in an interest-bearing account till the final resolution of disputes between the parties. (iii) Issue any such writ, order or direction and grant such other and incidental reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The brief fact as reflected from record is that respondent No. 1/Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotion Society (CHIPS) issued Request for Proposal (RFP) inviting bids for the purpose of Selection of Master System Integrator (MSI) for BharatNet Phase-II Project in the State of Chhattisgarh. During existence of commercial contract, a dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 (CHIPS), therefore, a writ petition bearing WPC No. 3351/2024 was filed by the petitioner wherein learned Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.07.2024 has granted interim protection in favour of petitioner restraining the respondents from encashing the performance bank guarantee of the petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.04.2025 by re-deligating the parties to approach the Commercial Court. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act, 1996”) wherein the Commercial Court vide order dated 03.05.2025 has ordered that as purely an interim measure, a status quo is maintained with regard to invocation of performance bank guarantee and also directed the respondents to file reply. After filing of reply by the respondents, the said application was disposed of by the Commercial Court vide order dated 06.05.2025 and vacated the status quo granted on 03.05.2025 with regard to invocation of performance bank guarantee. Thereafter, the proceeding for encashment of the bank guarantee has been initiated which has necessitated the petitioner to approach this Court. 4. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner would submit that the conduct of respondent No. 1 is wholly fraudulent, highhanded misleading the Court’s order of restraining the respondents to vacate the interim protection granted to the petitioner and efforts were made by the respondents to invoke the performance bank guarantee which is nothing but arbitrariness on the part of the respondents as the respondents have misused the power conferred upon them. Thus, he would pray for grant of interim relief at this juncture. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents as well as State opposing the submission made by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the instant petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner has remedy under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 or remedy under the Chhattisgarh Madhyashtham Adhikaran Act, 1983 is also available to the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition at this juncture is not maintainable and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 7. Considering the fact that there is arbitration clause in the agreement and the petitioner has also approached to the Commercial Court wherein liberty was granted to the petitioner to seek statutorily available remedy on arising of fresh cause of action, therefore, at this juncture, the writ petition is not maintainable. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take statutory remedy available to him under the law before the Commercial Court. The respondents are also at liberty to take their plea regarding maintainability of the application or any other objection which is permissible under the law. 8. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner would further submit that in the eventuality of filing application by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 or any other provisions of the Act, 1996 or application for grant of interim relief, a direction may kindly be issued to the Commercial Court to consider and decide the same expeditiously. 9. Prayer made by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner is just and proper, as such, the Commercial Court is directed to consider and decide the interim application or any other application under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 or any other provisions of this Act, filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law at the earliest. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty granted in favour the parties. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits of the case and it is for the Commercial Court to consider and decide the same in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while deciding the present writ petition. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Arun